Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
But I wouldn't envision marking an update as 'bad' although that's an
interesting concept itself. I was thinking that there would be a
specified time when all normal updates enter the repository, followed
by a time when only critical bug and security fix updates could be
added, so towards the end of that interval, packages that hadn't been
replaced with 'better' updates would automatically be assumed 'good'
and it would be fairly safe to update machines where you want less
risk. Then a new cycle of 'new feature' updates could start.
And presumably you (and everybody else) would wait out the "until known
good" period; and as nobody tried it before, get to keep the pieces of the
resulting breakage...
I'd expect everyone with more than one machine to choose different
settings per machine, depending on how well it was currently working and
how important its operation is. But if, as you are suggesting,
everyone did choose the more conservative alternative, would you agree
that the way fedora updates is not what people want?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
